The failure of reasoning:

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Woodcarver

belief in God not dogma...but I love that.

The claim of god's existence is dogma. Without that idea, religion couldn't pretend to know god's wants and expectations.

So to get this straight, you believe in god? Just not any of the established religions? What do you dislike about christianity? Islam? Judaism?

Since you don't subscribe to the top 3, where do you get your dogma? Do you just make it up as you go? do you decide what your god likes and dislikes? Or do you borrow heavily from christianity and other religions.

Most people who believe in god but not any particular religion seem to be the worst offenders of cherry picking. They will spout scripture when it suits them and denounce scripture that they disagree with. Would you say this description fits you?
i don't mean to be so curt, it's just that i have had this convo many times, so i know what i want to know from you. Feel free to correct me if i assume something incorrectly. And feel free to expound on anything you think i'm over looking.

originally posted by: auto3000
here's what we can do, simple example to see where your mind set is. I want you to to give me two truth statements: the first truth statement must be referring to a truth and the second truth statement referring to a fact. If you can do that, we can both see where the understanding is not clear.

Okay then.

Statement of truth: My favourite colour is blue.

truth
truːθ/
noun

-a statement or belief that is accepted as true.

Statement of fact: A person's favourite colour is subjective to them.

fact
fakt/
noun

-a thing that is known or proved to be true.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

you're still talking about facts...not truth...but, I do see where you're going with your response.

it is these facts which enable us to build better models of the universe, making our understanding of the truth a little more accurate everytime we discover a new fact. You seem to be implying that the validity of these facts are diminished in light of some truth that doesn't match these facts. But it is the culmination of these facts that have made life better for everyone, not claims of a spiritual realm. You can't honestly describe any properties of the spirit/immaterial.

a Critical thinker is a prisoner of Critical thinking, he can never be anything but critical.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Wrong context of the word truth....here's how reality works and then I'll sum this up.....Truth: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Example of a truth statement that refers to a truth: Humans have a mind.....example of a truth statement that refers to a fact.....humans have a brain. Facts are what is the case materially....truth is whatever is the case immaterially.....the statement must refer to an immaterial reality in order to be a truth statement that is addressing a truth. Statement of fact: A person's favourite colour is subjective to them....correction....that is either true or false not fact or fiction because it addresses an immaterial reality and that is human emotion towards something. The person being able to see the color is either fact of fiction. When a person is carnal minded it's very difficult for them to get into discussions about objectivity because they have become so accustomed to knowing only that which they can determine and prove, this can only be validly applied when you are discussing facts because they are subject to human reasoning.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Correction, you feel that way...you're not stating the reality of the case and that can be demonstrated...those approaches wont hold in a conversation with me because I can discern when a person is speaking from truth or state of mind (feelings).

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

This implies that you have never met anyone who really knows the truth, this is not about knowledge on knowledge...but you demonstrate to see it that way. This is about why reasoning fails, particularly when dealing with abstract objective realities like "a truth statement".

How about instead of me answering all these unnecessary questions, you actually get to the point of this topic?

You claim to have "the truth" and claim that "everyone else is wrong" therefore provide some content...

Once you do that, then I'll answer your questions

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a Critical thinker is a prisoner of Critical thinking, he can never be anything but critical.

Fallacious. Incorrect. Not so. I am a critical thinker and I accept plenty of things uncritically. I am not imprisoned by critical thinking, I simply know how to use it when the situation calls for it, such as when evaluating a new idea or considering a significant proposition.

a reply to: spygeek
your reply shows you are a prisoner to critical thinking as you didn't come at the statement without it.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: spygeek
your reply shows you are a prisoner to critical thinking as you didn't come at the statement without it.

??????

I don't need to employ critical thinking to recognise your attempt to bait us with such a sweeping generalisation.

Besides, my reply refuted your point, it did not prove it. An instance of critical thinking does not infer a slavery to it.

Then again, if you are not being critical, you will infer whatever you like, a slave to your own presupposition and biases..

originally posted by: auto3000
here's what we can do, simple example to see where your mind set is. I want you to to give me two truth statements: the first truth statement must be referring to a truth and the second truth statement referring to a fact. If you can do that, we can both see where the understanding is not clear.

1. Auto3000 is full of BS.

2. Auto3000 is full of BS.

Is that clear enough for you. Prove me wrong, oh thee with the perfect mind.

You reek of spiritual arrogance!!

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Woodcarver

Wrong context of the word truth....

Truth:
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:
mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.

How doesn't Woodcarvers words apply to any of the above?

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Woodcarver
Truth: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Accurate

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Woodcarver
Example of a truth statement that refers to a truth: Humans have a mind.....example of a truth statement that refers to a fact.....humans have a brain. Facts are what is the case materially....truth is whatever is the case immaterially

Where in the English dictionary does it state that "truth is immaterial"? You just stated not 1 sentence before this one that Truth is "that which is true or in accordance with fact", and now you're saying that it isn't in accordance to fact because "facts are material and truths are immaterial"

Do you honestly not see your immense flaws within your logic?

It is true that Gravity Exists

Gravity is not physical material

It is a fact that gravity exists

How is that possible if, according to you, 'facts are material and truth is immaterial'

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Woodcarver
A person's favourite colour is subjective to them....correction....that is either true or false not fact or fiction because it addresses an immaterial reality and that is human emotion towards something.

You don't even understand the terms you're using...

Show us a dictionary or an encyclopedia that backs your claims.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Woodcarver

Correction, you feel that way...you're not stating the reality of the case and that can be demonstrated...those approaches wont hold in a conversation with me because I can discern when a person is speaking from truth or state of mind (feelings).

Could you say this again with words that make sense? Just state your point simply and quit trying to overcomplicate your sentences. Wtf do you mean by i'm not stating the reality of the case? Which case? Quit playing the pronoun game and spit out what you're trying to say.

You can discern when someone is speaking from truth or state of mind? What are you talking about? Speaking from truth? Is that a place? Can anyone really speak from truth? State of mind? Which state of mind? I'm always speaking from some state of mind?
is english your second language?

whats with the constant "correction"? Are you a robot? Is this a touring test? If so, you just failed. If your really a human, that likewise does not bode well for you.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a Critical thinker is a prisoner of Critical thinking, he can never be anything but critical.

It's always either black or white with you huh? Prisoner of critical thinking? Did you coin that just now? Do you have some aversion to thinking critically? Which subjects should we not think critically about? Maybe you tried once and it hurt?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a Critical thinker is a prisoner of Critical thinking, he can never be anything but critical.

It's always either black or white with you huh? Prisoner of critical thinking? Did you coin that just now? Do you have some aversion to thinking critically? Which subjects should we not think critically about? Maybe you tried once and it hurt?

Heh, exactly.

According to the Collegiate Learning Assessment, critical thinking skills include the following:

-determine what information is or is not relevant
-distinguish between rational and emotional claims
-separate fact from opinion
-recognize the ways in which evidence might be limited or compromised
-spot deception and holes in the arguments of others
-present personal analysis of the data or information
-recognize logical flaws in arguments
-draw connections between discrete sources of data and information
-select the strongest set of supporting information
-recognize that a problem may have no clear answer or single answer

Doing all of this before forming an opinion on any matter will ensure a solid, logical, reasoned viewpoint. Afterwards, one is able to:

-articulate an argument and the context for that argument
-correctly and precisely use evidence to support and defend the argument

If ChesterJohn is averse to all of this, one has to wonder how he arrives at any conclusions at all..

And as for auto3000, I think professor Brian Cox summed it up well when he said:

“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”

I think I'll be roundly ignoring this thread from now on, it has no value apart from being an amusing curiosity..

a reply to: Ghost147

You still miss the point, read carefully: The point is this: "When a person is carnal minded it's very difficult for them to get into discussions about objectivity because they have become so accustomed to BELIEVING THAT THEY CAN ONLY know that which they can determine and prove, this can only be validly applied when you are discussing facts because they are subject to human reasoning". Reasoning can only hold it's validity up until truth comes into the equation, at that point you can only logically reason with the truth or deny it.

a reply to: Woodcarver

As you can see from how you are getting responded to, the truth always brings out individuals that despise it...facts hide true intention but truth, calls them out.

a reply to: Ghost147

If you believe that truth is material then you have demonstrated that this conversation is out of your league.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

If you believe that truth is material then you have demonstrated that this conversation is out of your league.

I'm in no way claiming that truth can or cannot be material, that's your claim, it's up to you to demonstrate it.

Apparently logic and reading comprehension is 'out of your league'.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
You still miss the point, read carefully: The point is this: "When a person is carnal minded it's very difficult for them to get into discussions about objectivity because they have become so accustomed to BELIEVING THAT THEY CAN ONLY know that which they can determine and prove, this can only be validly applied when you are discussing facts because they are subject to human reasoning".

This entire thread I've been arguing that objectivity is more accurate than subjectivity, do you even read the comments you're receiving?

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
Reasoning can only hold it's validity up until truth comes into the equation, at that point you can only logically reason with the truth or deny it.

Yes, I forgot I was dealing with a special person who was given this truth because they're special and more special than everyone else hear yet 3 pages later is still arguing semantics for no reason, trying to push the conversation in a specific direction, all without ever once stating what "the truth" that this special person knows really is...

Get to your damn point already.

a reply to: Ghost147

I said "if", that wasn't a claim. I respect how you feel, but your feelings are not addressing the topic. The point has been made, spiritual claims cannot be discerned by reasoning, they have to be spiritually discerned. If you know that you only do better with facts, then a truth claim is not one that you want to attempt to address. Semantics?....Truth and fact are nowhere near of the same meaning or intrinsic value.